Author Archives: theitriskmanager

About theitriskmanager

A IT programme manager specialising in delivering trading and risk management systems in Investment Banks. I achieve this by focusing on risk rather than cost. A focus on costs can lead to increased costs.

Culture and Needs

Thank you to Bob Marshall for inspiring me to write about needs with his work on the Anti-Matter principle. I feel a sense of sorrow when I read the anti-matter posts as I get a strong sense that Bobs needs have not been met. Also, that he may not have met the needs of others and that satisfying the needs of others might be a bit of a revelation to him. Its a hypothesis and I would be delighted if someone could show I was wrong.

When we go to work I feel that there are several different groups who’s needs need to be met. In no particular order, those groups are:

  • Employees (my colleagues) from the CEO all the way down
  • Employee’s family and friends.
  • Customers.
  • Providers and Suppliers.
  • Investors in the organisation.
  • The community in which the organisation exists.
  • The environment.

In order for an organisation to have a long term healthy and viable future, all of these needs have to be in balance.

For customers, the focus is on user experience, but sadly that is often only the case in situations where users have choice. In user experience, we talk about “user needs”, “jobs to be done” and “job stories” to reflect needs. Some much loved companies focus on their customers at the expense of other groups. For example Apple is famous for being focused on the needs of its customers but not the needs of its employees (especially those working for suppliers in China).

Some organisations focus on the needs of the “shiny” employees. Classic examples include Hollywood Studios, Premier League Football and Investment Banking. This is at the expense of the Customer, other Employees, Investors and the Community.

The needs of the organisation (investors) are often expressed in the form of business value.

My point is that needs are quite well understood. Its just we don’t just always call them needs.

Quite often, when we talk about needs, the group we feel gets ignored is the employee. And normally we mean ourselves.

In a risk averse culture, the organisation and its management/leadership will quite happily ignore risk. This is often evidenced because they ignore the needs of one or more groups. In a risk managed culture, the organisation and its management/leadership will always be on the look out for new risks. It will then ensure that those risks are managed in the most appropriate manner (including monitoring them but not acting). In a risk managed culture, you make sure that the needs of the different groups are balanced according to the context.

As an IT Risk Manager you know that the most significant source of risk arising out of your teams come from the individuals, relationships and groups. As an IT Risk Manager you understand that the best way to manage those risks is ensure the individuals, relationships and groups under your care are as healthy as possible. It is important to know the people you work with well enough to know that their needs are met, otherwise there is a risk that they will be become ill, or their relationships will suffer. You have to care about your colleagues. Personally, I find the best way to care is to first get people out of the office, and then share with them as they share with me. In other words, put them in an environment where they feel human and then treat them like a human rather than a colleague, or an employee, or a boss, or a subordinate. For this, I am eternally grateful for the numerous coffee and tea houses around London.As for my needs… I write this blog to share my experiences and ideas. My needs are met when people show appreciation, or challenge me with feedback that is useful to help me learn and evolve my thinking so that I can better meet my own and other’s needs. My needs are not met when I receive negative feedback that provides no guidance or insight to help me improve. I consider those that judge harshly or make cruel comments without providing useful feedback to be Internet Trolls. After a pattern of behaviour I tend to ignore those individuals. Does this post meet your needs?

Changing Culture

Seeing Culture touched on the phenomenological* aspects of Culture. This post offers a hypothesis on an epistemological* approach to changing culture. For now, I intend to ignore the ontological aspects, or rather “What Culture really is”.

Sense maker is a tool for understanding culture, and identifying weak signals. When it comes to culture there are weak signals, but they are often strong signals according to other cultures as well. This post is based on Dave Snowden’s idea that the way we change culture is create more cultural agents (stories) like “this” and less like that. So how do we create stories like the ones we want? When we talk about cultural change we mean moving the culture in a particular direction. It might mean moving a traditional (or risk averse) culture to an innovation (or risk managed) culture**. I hypothesise that the cultures of organisations naturally tend to move towards risk averse as they scale and the challenge is to move towards risk managed (innovation). We could use Sensemaker to find the stories but I propose a hypothesis that we can create stories based on our ability to see the different cultures. This is a complimentary approach to Sensemaker rather than a competitor. As the opportunity presents itself I will test this hypothesis and it would be great if you could as well (and feed back your results). It will form part of the Cukeup session I will be running in March.

The approach is quite simple.

1. Help managers / leaders to see culture using the behaviours in Seeing Culture. Get the managers to practice and reflect on seeing culture.

2. Once the managers / leaders can see culture, get them to agree on how to address each behaviour. In Cynefin terms, where to add or remove energy. This is to ensure consistency. e.g. When to praise someone privately / publicly. When to rebuke someone privately / publicly. When to coach someone privately / publicly etc.

3. Get the managers / leaders to mine and share the right kind of stories. The difference between this approach and Sensemaker is that we generate lots of options and let the fitness landscape choose which stories propagate. Sense maker is more precise approach to identify the stories with the most agency and impact. The difference is that between a shot gun and a sniper’s rifle… complimentary rather than competing. And to be effective, both should be used. ( I am keen for feedback from experts on Cynefin on this point )

4. Use Sensemaker to scan the culture for impact.

This is a hypothesis I will be testing. Please join me and share results.

More importantly, please tell me where this hypothesis is flawed. I would prefer to fail it early so that I can find and develop another hypothesis.

* – For Dave Snowden’s benefit so that he can see I have actually been listening.

** – People take risks in a risk averse culture. Its called gambling. Individuals and groups in a risk averse culture have an aversion to risk and tries to ignore it or transfers it others.

Seeing Culture

I have never been that interested in Culture. Like the law, politics and economics, culture was something I never needed to learn about. My roles were delivery focused which is a short term activity. As an Agile Coach, my goal is also the long term improvement of the organisation within my scope.

Culture is important to the long term health of an organisation. Peter Drucker said “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”. It also eats any attempt to improve an organisation. Some aspects of a change initiative will align with the culture and will take root. Aspects of the change initiative that do not align with the culture will be chewed up and spat out.

The problem with Culture is that it is invisible. Whenever you join a group you might notice that some of their behaviour is weird or strange. If you do not adapt to the culture, you will be rejected and it will spit you out. In order to survive in the group you start copying the behaviour. Your accent changes so that you say certain words in the way that dominant individuals in the group say them. After a while you don’t notice the differences anymore because you have been assimilated into the culture. This is where ethnography and anthropology comes into play, professionals skilled at such matters can “see” the culture without becoming assimilated into it, and record it in ways that others can see it. Unfortunately I’m not a professional ethnographer or anthropologist. Most of us do not record our initial observations. Inspired by the work of Dave Snowden, I’ve been applying a variant of Cynefin/sense maker/distributed ethnography whereby I record the things that other people and myself note as “weird or strange” behaviour. Each “weird” example has a corresponding normal behaviour. (If you have other examples, please leave them as comments.)

To help me structure my thoughts, I adopted Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions as a model (Olaf) to classify the observations. I used “break the model”, from Feature Injection, to apply the behaviour examples to the Hofstede’s model. So far there are a few hypotheses. These are:

1. Most important. Uncertainty avoidance is better understood as “Personal risk appetite” with “risk aversion” and one end of the scale and “risk managed” at the other. “Risk averse” means that individuals ignore risk or attempt to put it on others. “Risk managed” means that individuals seek to place risk in the best place for it to managed for the sake of the organisation.

2. “Risk Appetite” and “Power distance index” are heavily correlated, quite probably causally linked. Many of the examples could easily have fit in both dimensions. They seem to be the most important dimensions.

3. Most risk averse organisations have no mechanism to manage risk. Their culture prevents it.

4. Organisations need a healthy balance of culture, with the ability to manage risk. Risk managed cultures can adopt a risk averse approach. Risk Averse cultures will probably need an exogenous event to shock them into risk managed. It is likely that the shock will result in a dangerous “gambling” culture rather than a risk managed one.

I am now using the examples in the Hoftstede model form hypotheses about cultures. In other words, it helps me to see culture.

The next step is to help managers and leaders to see using the model so that they can act on the culture.

Below is the model (Olaf)…

Behaviour, Symbols and Process

<This is a horrible table. I will fix it when I do not have to do my chores>

Dimension Traditional Legacy Innovation Org
Power distance index Managers have offices. Managers sit with the team.
Introductions are managed through the hierarchy. Employees talk to whoever they need to do a job. Management is kept informed.
Frequent reference to grade levels during conversations. Frequent reference to capability and experience.
Deference to power. Deference to experience.
Decisions pushed up the hierarchy.(Inward looking approach) Decisions pushed to those closest to the customer.(Outward looking approach)
GeneralistsAs people without detail are making decisions, Phrases such as “Use Smaller Words” or “That’s sounds academic” are used. Generalising ExpertsTendency to inadvertently use technical terms that reflect their expertise

( Pivot, Hypothesis )

Bigger slower teams. Smaller faster teams.
Maintain status quo. Challenge status quo.
Titles reflect status. Titles reflect skill sets.
Manager review 360 reviews
“Because I say so” “Lets discuss that”
Individualism ( vs Collectivism ) N/A N/A
Uncertainty Avoidance Uncertainty resolved by deferring to expert (higher authority). Uncertainty resolved through hypothesis testing.
Slow build of “Robust” Solutions.(Plan Driven) Fast build of Resilient Solutions.(Responsive)
Outcomes are knowablee.g. Feature XYZ Outcomes are emergente.g. Reduce Churn.
Outcomes are binary (Success/Fail)e.g. Build Feature XYZ Outcomes are analogue(Scale)

e.g. Reduce Churn

Experts decide. Multiple Hypotheses tested in the market.
Risk Aversion to change. Rapid change.
Cost reduction. Customer value creation.
Powerpoint presentations. White board discussions.
Project Plan. Stickies on the wall.
Reliable with basics. Learning junkies
Architecture / Business Centric. Customer Centric.
Assumption. A classic risk avoidance mechanism. Hypothesis. A risk engagement mechanism.
“Vendor assumes risk” Risk managed by most appropriate resource.
Solution Focus Problem and Market Focus.
Managers regarded as controllers and masters Managers regarded as resources by their teams.
Opaque process. Only understood by the initiated. Transparency
Do the right thing for yourself regardless of cost to company. Do the right thing for company regardless of cost to self.
Internal Reputation. External Reputation. “Portfolio”
Punishment for Failure ·      Forgiveness for non negligent failure·      Learning expected from Failure (Retrospective culture)

·      Punishment for negligent failure

Get your boss to sign off and absolve you of blame. Taking responsibility and ownership of your actions.
“None of your business” “We need everyone to identify risks.”
Hate not knowing a valuable tool so devalue the tool. Delight in finding new tools and knowing you have a set of tools to learn. (Like the anticipation associated with Christmas).
Cannot delay gratification of resolving uncertainty. Understand value of delaying gratification of resolving uncertainty.
“Nothing to learn”. Huge backlog of things to learn.
Work is Perfect Work is good enough
People are good enough People aspire to perfection
Follow a script. Self Determination
Low cognitive load High cognitive load
Theory lead Praxis based
We can’t do that How can we do that?
Statement Discussion
Masculinity ( vs Feminimity ) ** Aggressive Passive
Safe Innovative
Control Responsibility
Long Term Orientation ( vs Short Term ) N/A N/A
Indulgence Versus Restraint Cost focus Value focus


Managing Conscious Incompetence – Looking for experience reports.

If you ever go to the Extreme Tuesday Club you are bound to hear the following conversation…

“I have a huge backlog of books to read”… “Yeah, I know. I’ve had to move my backlog to Kindle as I was running out of space”.

This conversation reflects the delight that the people at XTC take delight in their ignorance. When someone discovers a new idea, its added to the backlog of everyone at XTC. I’m thinking that XTC might be the only true learning community that I’m a member of.

As a coach, I find the Conscious Competence model to one of the most useful tools in my toolkit. It is also one of the most misunderstood. Conscious Incompetence means that someone is aware of an idea, AND that they value the idea. In other words, they understand “Whats in it for me?”. That backlog of books is a public indication of your ignorance. Its a public statement that there are ideas that you value but you do not know. I believe it was Plato who said our knowledge is a circle, and the circumference of the circle represents the things we do not know. The more we know, the more we realise we do not know.

In risk averse cultures I’ve observed that people do not want to admit ignorance. They tend to want to learn privately. This may be because there seems to be a correlation between risk averse cultures and those with a high power distance culture. In high power distance cultures, official status is about perception. If you admit that you do not know about something that it is valuable to know, and that someone else knows that, you are lowering your status. As such you will state publicly that the thing has no value, or that you already know it… until such time as you have developed the skill

So here is the hypothesis (theory). Could a community where people have a public backlog of the things they do not know but that they value be an indicator of a learning community. Another hypothesis. Could a public backlog of things to learn be used to tip a community’s culture from risk version to risk management?

One of the challenges of creating an Agile community is shifting the culture from risk averse to risk management. Is the creation of public learning backlog something that coaches and leaders can do to help this shift? I have been part of sessions where attendees create a skill market. Where they publish the things they want to learn, and the things they can help others learn. These have tended to be one off events. Does anyone know of a group that has published their learning backlogs?… and was there any impact on culture? I’m also interested in stories of failure, where the publishing the learning backlog has lead to more risk aversion.


I am a slow learner. My learning style is very slow and experiential. The most valuable things that I do not know are:

  • User Experience ( Looking for a good map of this rather large subject )
  • Culture ( Looking for a good practical guide )
  • Ethnography ( I’m still looking for a good introductory text for the practitioner )
  • Anthropology ( I’m still looking for a good introductory text for the practitioner )
  • Cynefin ( I’m attending the Sense Maker training course in January )
  • Complexity
  • Sense Making

Technical Debt is Risk Management

A few years ago I was lucky enough to work with Steve Freeman. Steve is the Gordon Ramsey of Software Development. If you have a badly formed code base, expect to hear about it. Steve worked with the graduate, Mark, on the team to “refactor”* some code. They created tests that clarified the intent of the code. Most impressive to me was that they reduced the size of the code base by 80%. Imagine you are editing a 200 page book with random duplication. Steve and Mark’s work reduced that to 40 pages and removed the unnecessary duplication. Everything was where it should be, and you only had to find something once rather than find a random number of instances. (Note: Some teams print off the code they delete and put it in a “book of dead code”) This was vital work as we were about to make significant changes to the code. The refactoring they did was pure risk management. It meant the chances of missing a necessary change were reduced as previously the code had been cut, paste and tweaked to death. Delivery risk ( endless looping in the test phase ) was reduced, and the risk of missing something in testing that damaged the production business was also reduced.

In Commitment we use the analogy of a kitchen to describe technical debt. A clean kitchen is one where things are in the place a professional chef (e.g. Gordon Ramsey) would expect them to be and it is stocked and ready to go. A kitchen where things are in the wrong place or the utensils and surfaces have not been cleaned and put away has technical debt as the chef needs to clean up and prepare the kitchen before they can start. The clean up and preparation is normally the first thing Gordon does when he visits a kitchen on one of his shows.

Each team will have a definition for good code. A definition of where things should be. Anything that does not conform to that standard is technical debt. Working on code that contains technical debt introduces significantly more risk than code without technical debt. The risks introduced include:

1. Delivery Risk. Technical Debt tends to blow up in the test phase where it cannot be managed, only responded to. The project Steve and I worked on was plagued by a team that did not have automated tests. The same bug resurfaced several times due to a lack of regression testing.

2. Business Case Risk. If the code contains technical debt, there is more likelihood that it will behave in an unpredictable manner and the changes will not deliver the value expected.

3. Risk to existing Model. If the code contains technical debt, there is more likelihood that it will fail in production in a way that damages the existing production system.

As such, from a risk management perspective it is often prudent to pay down technical debt before making changes. This is where Steve’s suggestion that the team regard the code base as a portfolio of sold call options is really useful. For each component of the system, the team can identify how much technical debt exists. The measure for the technical debt should be how much effort it will take to pay it down. This effort should consider how complex the debt is, and the staff liquidity matrix, namely how many team members can work on the component.

The product owner can then create a “tornado map” where they map out the high level road map for the next six months to a year. The further out, the more uncertainty there is. Using the tornado map, the product owner and team can work out which technical debt should be paid down now and which can be left. In some cases the technical debt may take a long time to fix, or contain too much complexity to estimate effectively. In those cases, it may be necessary to pay down the debt early. In other words, risky option positions should be closed down early.

Technical debt is much to do with the skills and perception of the team. One team may consider their code base to be clean whereas in reality it contains a lot of risk. As such, it is necessary to hire someone experienced at identifying dead code.

Like Gordon Ramsey, good developers don’t create so much technical debt in the first place, so it is cheaper to hire good developers in the first place so you do not need to pay for dead code. So my advice to you is to hire Steve Freeman, the Gordon Ramsey of code bases, for his sixth sense about code, someone who can say “I see dead code”.

* It was not a refactoring as there were no automated tests. Part of the process was putting the tests in place.

As suggested by Steve Smith, here is an example of what a Tornado Map would look like.

Although I apply this thinking, I have not created a map. This is the what the one in my head looks like that I use for this purpose.

Screen Shot 2014-12-31 at 15.53.24

The backlog is down the side with the Epics grouped into those expected to be done in the next month, quarter and year.

Across the top are the components of the system. I would expect them to be similar to those on the skills matrix for the team. The technical debt is displayed below each component. It is expressed in team weeks (i.e. SWAGs).

From the example, you can see the most immediate problems are the loader and especially the build system.

After the build and loader are sorted, the next problem is the blue component which will almost certainly be hit this quarter. The red component has less technical debt and might not even need to be changed.

Even though the yellow component contains a lot of technical debt, it is not going to be touched for over a quarter and is less important than the build system.

Scaling the Product Owner.

I’m a huge fan of Dave Snowden’s work, especially as it comes to Scaling Agile. In particular I love the “Recipe Follower and Chefs” metaphor. It captures the difference between what I call theorists and practitioners, although I should really refer to practitioners as praxis-ists. To me, the theorists are the ones who make up the recipes rather than the ones who follow them.

The problem with recipes is that they ignore context. A practitioner operates within a context and so cannot ignore context. The recipe for making a cup of tea is simple… unless you are on a beach, or in the Himalayas where the boiling point for water is much lower.

I love Scrum for its simplicity. Its an approach that can be explained in half an hour yet takes a life time to fully master. Scrum has three roles “Product owner”, “Team” and “Scrum Master”. The product owner makes all the decisions about the product, they prioritise (order) the backlog. Simple! In the context of a single team, Scrum is great.

The problem with Scrum is when you have multiple teams. Or rather, Scrum is not designed for a multi-team development and assumes a single team environment. There is no problem with Scrum, the problem is that reality does not fit into the context that Scrum was designed for.

So lets look at this problem in more detail. Imagine an organisation with two teams (TeamA & TeamB), each of which has a backlog owned by a product owner. TeamA has an MVP called MVPA which requires work from both TeamA and TeamB. TeamB has an MVP called MVPB which also requires work from both TeamA and TeamB. The product owners prioritise their own MVP in their respective backlog… TeamA will has MVPA at the top and MVPB at the bottom. TeamB has MVPB at the top and MVPA at the bottom. This means that MVPA and MVPB will not ship until both are complete.This might seem a crazy situation but it is exactly what happens if a mechanism is not put in place to manage it. Product Owners will prioritise the requirement of the last senior executive to shout at them to get their work prioritised. Furthermore, this is an abdication of responsibility by the executives of the organisation who should be providing direction and focus. In effect the executives have devolved responsibility for the companies direction to the product owners of the Scrum Teams. Although the product owners may understand their product, they do not necessarily have an organisation wide perspective.

What we need is some mechanism to unpick these dependencies so that either MVPA or MVPB is at the top of both backlogs. What are the solutions?

1. The immediate response it to organise the teams into proper Scrum Teams or “Feature Teams”. Each team should be able to deliver a full MVP without any dependency on other teams. This is the ideal situation and should be the first approach. There are contexts where this is not possible. There are organisations and products that are so large that specialisation is needed and a team of 6 to 9 developers cannot cover the entire space. This is the context of Scaling Agile. If you are following a recipe, this is where you will struggle as the Scrum recipe does not work. Its like trying to follow a recipe to make an omelette without eggs.

2. In this situation, we decided to use the “theory of constraints” to find the constraints and create an organisational backlog. We were no longer following a recipe, instead we were having to experiment like Chef’s do. The product owner recipe actually became a problem for us. The theorists ( Recipe Maker ) told us that the product owner should always own the ordering of the backlog. The context meant that to deliver fast, the product owner needed to prioritise their backlog according to a higher level “organisational backlog”. Scaling the Product Owner role creates a direct conflict with the principles of Scrum. If we follow the Scrum Principles we have no control over delivery at the organisational level, however if we create an “organisational backlog”, we violate the Scrum Principles.

For an organisation trying to scale the Product Owner role, this presents a very real challenge. We had executives who saw the need for an “organisational backlog” but also the need for product owner autonomy. In some ways this was a good thing as the executives were thinking hard about not undermining the product owner. On the other hand, it hampered our ability to deliver.

Note that this does not even consider how the “executive backlog” is prioritised / ordered. Whether the prioritisation is top-down, bottom-up, collaborative or directive, democratic or autocratic. Simply the need for an “organisational backlog” causes the Product Owner role recipe to “fail”.

If you are Scaling Agile, you need to hire a (team of) Chefs. You need to hire people with years of experience applying Agile in the role of product management, architecture and IT (risk) management. This team will be coaches to help you handle the situations where the recipes fail. You will also need the people churning out the recipe books and training the teams in team level Agile practices. Your teams will need to follow the recipes but you will also need Chefs for when the context causes the recipes to fail.

A final word of warning, beware of Nigella Lawson. Nigella simply copies other people’s recipes (She has a vast library of Cookery books) but does not invent recipes herself. She is famous but she is not a Chef as should not be listened to when the recipe fails. Instead, hire the Chef from your local gastro pub where you like the food.

I’m conscious that I am not an expert in Scrum. If I have misunderstood something, please let me know and I will update the post.

Introducing Roleism

At XP Day a few weeks ago I gave a lightening talk introducing “Roleism” and I wrote this up after being prompted by a couple of people present.

“Meet the Parents” is a funny film with one underlying “ism”. Its a film about “Roleism”, a prejudice that one person is better than another because of the role they do. In the film Greg Focker is considered inferior because he is a nurse rather than a doctor. Furthermore, it is assumed he is a nurse because he could not get the grades to be a doctor. The underlying message is “Why would someone choose to take a lower status role in society just to help others?”

As a Business Analyst and Project Manager I have often experienced roleism in the Agile Community. Friends will introduce me “He a business analyst, but unlike all the rest, he’s a good one”. What happens if we replace the term “Business Analyst” with “Indian”, “Woman” or “Gay”. How does that make you feel? The assumption is that all Business Analysts are useless but I’m alright. Once you get away from the bright lights of the Agile Conferences you discover that many Agile Teams work with business analysts or architects or some other “untouchable”. The reality is that prejudice on the basis of role is no way near as serious as the other forms of prejudice and I do not mean to imply it is in any way. Then again, when we look at the correlation of roles with gender and ethnicity, we might start to feel less comfortable about “Roleism”. “Roleism” might sound like a joke, however it is the basis of the caste system in India which is perpetuated by poverty and access to education.

I’ve experienced “Roleism” in the Agile Movement for many years. I’ve seen a video of an Agile Thought Leader describing business analysis practices as evil. The implication being that anyone using those tools is also evil. The thing that caused me the most concern about that incident was that no one challenged them. No one said “we should not demonise or de-humanise sub-groups within the community”. It was tolerated.

I’ve worked in a company where “Roleism” is institutionalised with leaders saying testers are not as good as developers. Perhaps if the testers had had he same educational advantages as developers….. but that starts to make us feel uncomfortable.

Why is “Roleism” important now?

Many Agile practices came from studying the best developers in the community. XP was based on the practices of Kent Beck, Ward Cunningham, Martin Fowler, Ron Jeffries, Chet Hendrickson et al. These were built upon by Tim Mackinnon, Steve Freeman, Nat Pryce, Janet Gregory, Lisa Crispin, Lisa Hendrickson, Liz Keogh and many others. Practitioners, not theorist.

There is a huge demand for scaling Agile to the Enterprise. This means that some of the roles we do not need at the team level start to come back into the picture when we are working across teams at the organisational level. All of a sudden we need Business Analysts and Architects and Project (Risk) Managers and and and…. The problem we have is that “Roleism” means the good ones stay away from the Agile community. We do not have the Kents and Wards and Rons whose practices we can model. And into that vacuum steps the trainers and the theorists. In absense of practices developed by the best practitioners, the theorists and the trainers make them up. Their clients expect them, so as experts they are expected to provide them. And we know what happens when the theorists start calling the shots. In a few years we will find ourselves being controlled by people who do not know what they are doing because they have been “helped” by people who do not know what they are doing.

Imagine a movie called “Meet the Project”. It stars a veteran project manager who does not trust a business analyst. The business analyst claims they could have been a developer but really wanted to help projects instead. The business analyst is the butt of the jokes, an outsider, until they are eventually cast out of the project. Only then does the project manager discover that the business analyst once contributed to open source. Who is the butt of the joke now?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 70 other followers